← All Phrases

“non-resident”

Chapter I - PreliminarySection 2 - DefinitionsSection 2(30) / Section 6 / ITR Forms3,736 judgments

The decision most relied on for non-resident is GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (327 ITR 456), cited in 663 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on non-resident

GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
327 ITR 456 · 2010 · Supreme Court
663
citing judgments

Tax must be deducted at source from payments made to a non-resident under Section 195 only if such payment is chargeable to tax in India. The Assessing Officer bears the onus to establish that the payments made are indeed chargeable to tax under the Income Tax Act.

CIT v. Samsung Electronics Ltd.
345 ITR 494 · 2012 · High Court
461
citing judgments

Payments by Indian residents to non-resident foreign software suppliers for software are considered royalty, constituting income deemed to accrue in India under section 9(1)(v), thereby requiring tax deduction at source under section 195.

Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. v. DIT
288 ITR 408 · 2007 · Supreme Court
394
citing judgments

Income from offshore supply of goods and services is not taxable in India if the entire transaction, including transfer of ownership and payments, occurs outside India.

CIT v. De Beers India Minerals (P.) Ltd.
346 ITR 467 · 2012 · High Court
371
citing judgments

For fees for technical or consultancy services to 'make available' technical knowledge or know-how under a DTAA, the service must transmit such knowledge, allowing the recipient to derive an enduring benefit and utilize it independently in the future.

CIT v. Toshoku Ltd.
125 ITR 525 · 1980 · Supreme Court
270
citing judgments

A non-resident commission agent is not chargeable to tax in India on commission income if no business operations are carried out in India. Consequently, no TDS is required under Section 195 on such payments.

DIT v. Infrasoft Ltd.
39 Taxmann.com 88 · 2013 · High Court
269
citing judgments

Payments for the use of copyrighted software, without the transfer of any rights in the underlying copyright itself, do not constitute 'royalty' under the Income-tax Act or tax treaties. Such payments are often treated as business income, taxable only if a permanent establishment exists.

Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh v. CIT
239 ITR 587 · 1999 · Supreme Court
243
citing judgments

The Supreme Court lays down principles for deducting tax at source (TDS) under Section 195 on payments to non-residents, including aspects of income deemed taxable in India and the application of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) under Section 90.

ONGC v. CIT
376 ITR 306 · 2015 · Supreme Court
241
citing judgments

Income derived by a non-resident for services related to mineral oil operations, falling under the presumptive taxation regime of Section 44BB, cannot simultaneously be treated as fees for technical services under Section 9(1)(vii). The specific presumptive provisions override the general FTS definition, particularly when DTAA applies.

Judgments citing non-resident

Bathx Bathware India Private Limited, Kochin vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 436/COCH/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

Shri Muhammed Madni appeared as a shareholder, the actual investment was made on behalf of Shri Muhammed Abdul Gafoor and Shri Shameem, who are non-resident individuals and the brother and associate of Shri Muhammed Madni, respectively. The AR further emphasized that the actual ownership of shares

A B C Sales Corporation, Kannur vs. ITO, Circle-1, Kannur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 404/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

Shri Muhammed Madni appeared as a shareholder, the actual investment was made on behalf of Shri Muhammed Abdul Gafoor and Shri Shameem, who are non-resident individuals and the brother and associate of Shri Muhammed Madni, respectively. The AR further emphasized that the actual ownership of shares

Abc Buildware India (P) Limited, Kannur vs. ITO, Circle-1, Kannur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 389/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

Shri Muhammed Madni appeared as a shareholder, the actual investment was made on behalf of Shri Muhammed Abdul Gafoor and Shri Shameem, who are non-resident individuals and the brother and associate of Shri Muhammed Madni, respectively. The AR further emphasized that the actual ownership of shares

Laura Ann, Singapore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, International Taxation, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 262/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CA

Bangalore dated 31/01/2023 in respect of the A.Y. 2018-19. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a non-resident and filed her return of income on 24/07/2018. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notices were issued for which the assessee

Sunil Kumar Jain, Prop., Panipat vs. ACIT, Panipat

ITA 5755/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Pradip Kumar Kediaita No. 78/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 5755/Del/2019 :Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Sunil Kumar Jain, Vs Cit(A), Prop. M/S Nirmal International, Karnal, Village Faridpur, Masd Public School Haryana-132001 Road, Panipat, Haryana-132103 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abbpj4056B Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Twin Appeals Ita No. 78/Del/2017 & Ita No. 5755/Del/2019, Both For Assessment Year 2012-13, Arises Against The Cit(A), Karnal’S As Many Orders Dated 21.10.2016 & 24.04.2019 Passed In Case No. 48/Ppt/2014-15 & It/24/E/Ppt/2018-19, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) & 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

Appeals, is not justified in making disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of payment made to Non-Resident for travelling, Professional/Managerial Services amounting to Rs. 2,86,915/- on account of professional and managerial services to exhibit its products in "Domotex" which ... comes the second issue between the parties regarding disallowance of assessee’s various travelling, professional and managerial expenditure of Rs.2,86,915/-; paid to non-resident, made by the Assessing Officer and upheld in the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion as under: f) With regard to the payments made

Sh. Sunil Kumar Jain, Prop., Panipat vs. ACIT, Panipat

ITA 78/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Pradip Kumar Kediaita No. 78/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 5755/Del/2019 :Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Sunil Kumar Jain, Vs Cit(A), Prop. M/S Nirmal International, Karnal, Village Faridpur, Masd Public School Haryana-132001 Road, Panipat, Haryana-132103 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abbpj4056B Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Twin Appeals Ita No. 78/Del/2017 & Ita No. 5755/Del/2019, Both For Assessment Year 2012-13, Arises Against The Cit(A), Karnal’S As Many Orders Dated 21.10.2016 & 24.04.2019 Passed In Case No. 48/Ppt/2014-15 & It/24/E/Ppt/2018-19, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) & 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

Appeals, is not justified in making disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of payment made to Non-Resident for travelling, Professional/Managerial Services amounting to Rs. 2,86,915/- on account of professional and managerial services to exhibit its products in "Domotex" which ... comes the second issue between the parties regarding disallowance of assessee’s various travelling, professional and managerial expenditure of Rs.2,86,915/-; paid to non-resident, made by the Assessing Officer and upheld in the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion as under: f) With regard to the payments made

Kiri Industries Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1513/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumarshri Tr Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh B Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 234ASection 270ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

made the disallowance of Rs.57,74,000/- u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act, in respect of commission paid to non-resident agents as no TDS was effected on the commission payment. The said disallowance was confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) 8. At the outset, it was submitted that the amounts ... have been paid to non-resident agents who are not tax payable entities in India for the services rendered abroad. The commission agents who have been paid commission do not have any permanent establishment in India. Hence, no disallowance u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act, is attracted as the entities

Rekha Sanjeev Bhatt, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Intl.Taxn., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1025/AHD/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2021-22 Rekha Sanjeev Bhatt Vs. Ito, Ward-2 34, Paramgreen Bungalows International Tax Vill: Kolat,Tal: Sanand Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan : Bykpb 7551 A : Assessee By Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/12/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/12/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(3)Section 144C(5)Section 69Section 69A

deposited in Indian NRE bank account of the assessee. 5 It is noted that it is an undisputed fact that the assessee is a non-resident and all the transactions noted by the AO were effected through her NRE bank account . 10. As per the details filed before ... deleted. The ground no.7 is therefore allowed. 35. We may add that it is an undisputed fact that the assessee is a non-resident in the impugned year. Further all transactions carried out from her bank account which are the subject matter of addition by the AO , be it cash

Kangra Valley Garden Hotels Private Limited, Kangra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, Dharamshala

Appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by

ITA 602/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: This Tribunal As & By Way Of Second Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR (Virtual)
Section 127(2)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253

provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") with respect to share premium amount received by the appellant from non-resident individuals and by treating the same as unexplained credits 5. The Ld C1T(A) / Ld. AO have erred in holding that appellant received unreasonably high

Kangra Valley Garden Hotels Private Limited, Kangra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, Dharamshala

Appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by

ITA 601/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: This Tribunal As & By Way Of Second Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR (Virtual)
Section 127(2)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253

provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") with respect to share premium amount received by the appellant from non-resident individuals and by treating the same as unexplained credits 5. The Ld C1T(A) / Ld. AO have erred in holding that appellant received unreasonably high

Kangra Valley Garden Hotels Private Limited, Kangra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, Dharamshala

Appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by

ITA 600/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: This Tribunal As & By Way Of Second Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR (Virtual)
Section 127(2)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253

provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") with respect to share premium amount received by the appellant from non-resident individuals and by treating the same as unexplained credits 5. The Ld C1T(A) / Ld. AO have erred in holding that appellant received unreasonably high

Shell Global Solutions International B.V, Mumbai vs. The ACIT, Intl. Taxn.-2, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the CO filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1783/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarwith Co No.20/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 1783/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shell Global Solutions International B.V.,, Acit, International C/O. Bsr Associates & Llp Vs Taxation-1 903, Commerce House V Ahmedabad. Nr.Vodafone House Prahaladnagar Corporation Road, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaics 3589 H (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2024 & 06/12/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/12/2024

Section 143(3)Section 144C

find that it has in principle laid down that there is no base erosion by the ALP adjustment in the hands of the non-resident company in respect of transaction with the Indian AEs. Para-15 to 19 of the order of the Special Bench specifically and categorically deal with ... Special Bench, noting that second proviso to section 92C(4) of the Act constituted a bar against lowering of the income of the non-resident AE as a result of lowering the deduction in the hands of the Indian AE, rather than as enabling higher deduction in the hands

Shell Global Solutions International B.V, Mumbai vs. The ACIT, Intl. Taxn.-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the CO filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2390/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarwith Co No.20/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 1783/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shell Global Solutions International B.V.,, Acit, International C/O. Bsr Associates & Llp Vs Taxation-1 903, Commerce House V Ahmedabad. Nr.Vodafone House Prahaladnagar Corporation Road, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaics 3589 H (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2024 & 06/12/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/12/2024

Section 143(3)Section 144C

find that it has in principle laid down that there is no base erosion by the ALP adjustment in the hands of the non-resident company in respect of transaction with the Indian AEs. Para-15 to 19 of the order of the Special Bench specifically and categorically deal with ... Special Bench, noting that second proviso to section 92C(4) of the Act constituted a bar against lowering of the income of the non-resident AE as a result of lowering the deduction in the hands of the Indian AE, rather than as enabling higher deduction in the hands

Tungsten Network Limited, United Kingdom vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Civic Centre, Minto Road

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2238/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita Nos. 2237 & 2238/Del/2024 (Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18) Tungsten Network Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit Anil Saraf, No.8-2-350/3/C, Civic Centre, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Minto Road, Hyderabad, Telangana-34 New Delhi – 110 002 Pan : Aajct 5973 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anil Saraf, C.A. & Shri Anish Raj Saraf, C.A. Respondent By Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing 25.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.12.2024 O R D E R Per Bench :

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 9(1)(vii)

DCIT A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18 India. Section 5(2) read with section 9 of the Act deals with source rules for non-resident under the provisions of Income-tax Act. 9. In the event and income i.e. sourced in India is not characterized under the heads provided

Tungsten Network Limited, United Kingdom vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Civic Centre, Minto Road

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2237/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita Nos. 2237 & 2238/Del/2024 (Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18) Tungsten Network Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit Anil Saraf, No.8-2-350/3/C, Civic Centre, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Minto Road, Hyderabad, Telangana-34 New Delhi – 110 002 Pan : Aajct 5973 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anil Saraf, C.A. & Shri Anish Raj Saraf, C.A. Respondent By Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing 25.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.12.2024 O R D E R Per Bench :

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 9(1)(vii)

DCIT A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18 India. Section 5(2) read with section 9 of the Act deals with source rules for non-resident under the provisions of Income-tax Act. 9. In the event and income i.e. sourced in India is not characterized under the heads provided

Jt.CIT (OSD) Central Circle 16, New Delhi vs. Nidra Hospitality P.Ltd, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1954/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18 Jt. Cit(Osd), Vs. M/S. Nidra Hospitality P. Ltd., Central Circle-16, 32/7, Plot No. 9, New Delhi Samalka, Nh-8, New Delhi Pan :Aaccn9116H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Jyoti Narula, Ca Ms. Himani Chauhan, Ca Department By Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.12.2024 Order

Section 143(3)Section 68

explained. Thus, the claim of the appellant is genuine and bonafide and the appellant has proved that the investing company which is non-resident and the holding company of the appellant has regularly been infusing share capital since assessment year 2012-2013. Also, for the sake of repetition, the investing ... company which is a non-resident has subscribed to the share capital during the relevant financial year, out of funds remitted by it from outside India through proper banking channels which is duly substantiated. Therefore, the Income Tax Department cannot judge the prudent mind of making investment and cannot raise

Saket Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3) Jaipur, Jaipur

ITA 1112/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Dec 2024AY 2018-19
For Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 5

However, subsequently, in his response dated 19.03.2021, the assessee claimed that residential status for A.Y 2018-19 as Non-resident. Ld. AO noted that the assessee could not have two residential status for A.Y 2018-19 i.e. Non-residential status for Salary Income and Residential Status for Business Income. While ... Further, as per the provisions of the IT Act, the appellant cannot declarehimself for two residential status for the same year i.e. A.Y.2018-19 i.e. Non-resident status for salary income and Residential status for business income.So, the residentials status of the appellant is hereby held as 'Resident only. 6.2.7. Further

The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Mayora India Private Limited (Formerly Known As, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the Department are dismissed

ITA 419/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT D.R
Section 68

primarily on the ground that the assessee was able to substantiate the creditworthiness of the investor company and also since the investor is a non-resident, as per Proviso to Section 68 of the Act, since the investment was being made by a non- resident company, the source of investment ... credit-worthiness of the investor, the sources have been claimed to be loans raised by the investor. Since the investor i's a non-resident and as per the proviso to Section 68 of the Act, its source for investing is not required to be mandatory proved to the satisfaction

The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Mayora India Private Limited (Formerly Known As "Inbisco India Pvt. Ltd.), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the Department are dismissed

ITA 418/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT D.R
Section 68

primarily on the ground that the assessee was able to substantiate the creditworthiness of the investor company and also since the investor is a non-resident, as per Proviso to Section 68 of the Act, since the investment was being made by a non- resident company, the source of investment ... credit-worthiness of the investor, the sources have been claimed to be loans raised by the investor. Since the investor i's a non-resident and as per the proviso to Section 68 of the Act, its source for investing is not required to be mandatory proved to the satisfaction

L'Oreal India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Department, Mumbai

ITA 4577/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarl'Oreal India Private V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, A-Wing, 8Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, N.M. Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai Maharashtra 400 013, बनाम Income Tax- 7(1)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacl0738K Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Appellant By : Shri Niraj Sheth Respondent By : Ms. Neena Jeph (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing 19.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Prabhash Shankar [Α.Μ.] This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer (‘Tpo' For Short) Pursuant To The Direction Of The Hon'Ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('Drp' For Short), Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Relevant To The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2020-21.The Assessee Has Challenged The Grounds Of Transfer Pricing Adjustment On Account Of Advertisement, Marketing & Promotion (Amp) Expenses. Following Are The Grounds Raised By The Assessee: Page 2

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph (CIT DR)
Section 143(3)Section 4Section 92Section 92BSection 92C

Page 1 ITA No. 4577/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2020-21) IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP